[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1065f517-c94b-5a47-34f6-52015b3ef907@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:08:57 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC: "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kashyap.desai@...adcom.com" <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
"hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Fix blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() for shared tags
On 13/10/2021 16:13, John Garry wrote:
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>> index 72a2724a4eee..2a2ad6dfcc33 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>> @@ -232,8 +232,9 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap,
>> unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>> if (!rq)
>> return true;
>> - if (rq->q == hctx->queue && rq->mq_hctx == hctx)
>> - ret = iter_data->fn(hctx, rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
>> + if (rq->q == hctx->queue && (rq->mq_hctx == hctx ||
>> + blk_mq_is_shared_tags(hctx->flags)))
>> + ret = iter_data->fn(rq->mq_hctx, rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
>> blk_mq_put_rq_ref(rq);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -460,6 +461,9 @@ void blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(struct
>> request_queue *q, busy_iter_fn *fn,
>> if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
>> bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true);
>> bt_for_each(hctx, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false);
>> +
>> + if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(hctx->flags))
>> + break;
>> }
>> blk_queue_exit(q);
>> }
>>
>
> I suppose that is ok, and means that we iter once.
>
> However, I have to ask, where is the big user of
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() coming from? I saw this from Kashyap's mail:
>
> > 1.31% 1.31% kworker/57:1H-k [kernel.vmlinux]
> > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> > ret_from_fork
> > kthread
> > worker_thread
> > process_one_work
> > blk_mq_timeout_work
> > blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter
> > bt_iter
> > blk_mq_find_and_get_req
> > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>
> How or why blk_mq_timeout_work()?
Just some update: I tried hisi_sas with 10x SAS SSDs, megaraid sas with
1x SATA HDD (that's all I have), and null blk with lots of devices, and
I still can't see high usage of blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter().
So how about we get this patch processed (to fix
blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter()), as it is independent of
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter()? And then wait for some update or some more
info from Kashyap regarding blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter()
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists